A comparative clinical study of PF-06410293, a candidate adalimumab biosimilar, and adalimumab reference product (Humira®) in the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis

Abstract

BackgroundThis double-blind, randomized, 78-week study evaluated the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of PF-06410293, a candidate adalimumab biosimilar, versus adalimumab reference product (Humira®) sourced from the EU (adalimumab-EU) in biologic-naïve patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate (MTX) (10–25 mg/week). We report results for the first 26 weeks of treatment.MethodsPatients with active RA (N = 597) were randomly assigned (1:1) to PF-06410293 or adalimumab-EU, while continuing with MTX treatment. The primary endpoint was American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) at week 12. Therapeutic equivalence was concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ACR20 difference between the two arms was entirely contained within the symmetric equivalence margin (±14%). Additionally, a two-sided 90% CI was calculated by using an asymmetric equivalence margin (−12%, 15%). Secondary efficacy endpoints to week 26 included ACR20/50/70, change from baseline Disease Activity Score based on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [DAS28–4(CRP)], European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, DAS28–4(CRP) of less than 2.6, and ACR/EULAR remission. QuantiFERON-TB testing was performed at screening and week 26.ResultsPatients (78.7% of whom were female and whose mean age was 52.5 years) had a mean baseline RA duration of 6.8 years. The mean baseline DAS28–4(CRP) values were 5.9 (PF-06410293) and 6.1 (adalimumab-EU). The observed week-12 ACR20 values were 68.7% (PF-06410293) and 72.7% (adalimumab-EU) in the intention-to-treat population. With non-responder imputation, the treatment difference in week-12 ACR20 was −2.98% and corresponding CIs—95% CI (−10.38%, 4.44%) and 90% CI (−9.25%, 3.28%)—were entirely contained within the equivalence margins (symmetric and asymmetric, respectively). The secondary efficacy endpoints were similar between arms. Over 26 weeks, injection-site reactions occurred in 1.7% versus 2.0%, hypersensitivity events in 4.4% versus 8.4%, pneumonia in 0.7% versus 2.0%, and opportunistic infections in 2.4% versus 1.7% in the PF-06410293 and adalimumab-EU arms, respectively. One death due to myocardial infarction occurred (adalimumab-EU arm). Rates of anti-drug antibody incidence were 44.4% (PF-06410293) and 50.5% (adalimumab-EU).ConclusionsThe study results demonstrate that efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of PF-06410293 and adalimumab-EU were similar during the first 26 weeks of treatment in patients with active RA on background MTX.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02480153. First posted on June 24, 2015; EU Clinical Trials Register EudraCT number: 2014-000352-29. Start date: October 27, 2014.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-018-1676-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Safety of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

“…In total, 21 studies evaluating bsDMARDs,52–72 18 studies evaluating boDMARDs73–90 and 21 studies evaluating tsDMARDs91–111 were included (online supplementary table S104). Overall, the incidence of major adverse events was low in all RCTs with mostly no differences between the active treatment and placebo or active comparator.…”

Efficacy of pharmacological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature research informing the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis

“…All showed conclusive comparable results, irrespective of the compound (adalimumab (ADA), etanercept, infliximab and rituximab; for bsDMARD studied see table 1, online supplementary table S2.10 and online supplementary table S3.11). 30–55…”

Acute respiratory viral adverse events during use of antirheumatic disease therapies: A scoping review

“…TNFi: There were 60 studies included in which TNF inhibitors (TNFi), individually or as a class, were the exposure of interest among immune-mediated systemic inflammatory diseases. These included eighteen placebo-controlled RCTs [ 27 , 28 , [112] , [113] , [114] , [115] , [116] , [117] , [118] , [119] , [120] , [121] , [122] , [123] , [124] , [125] , [126] , [127] ], ten active comparator RCTs [128] , [129] , [130] , [131] , [132] , [133] , [134] , [135] , [136] , [137] , 25 cohort studies [ 19 , 34 , 35 , 38 , 39 , 75 , 83 ,– 85 , [138] , [139] , [140] , [141] , [142] , [143] , [144] , [145] , [145] , [147] , [148] , [149] , [150] , [151] , [152] , [153] ], one pooled safety analysis [154] , one case-control study [155] , one cross-sectional study [21] , and four case series [156] , [157] , [158] , [159] . In severa...…”